From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Feb 4 00:54:19 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i145sJl01098; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 00:54:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 00:54:19 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200402040554.i145sJl01098@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #55 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Feb 2004 00:54:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 55 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson PluggedIn: Going Mobile on a PC is Risky Business (Monty Solomon) Cisco Systems Reports Second Quarter Earnings (Monty Solomon) Jackson, Timberlake Apologize for Flash (Monty Solomon) New Verizon Advertising Socks it to Cable (Monty Solomon) MTV Blames Janet Jackson for Super Bowl Incident (Monty Solomon) Re: 450-434 Prefix? (Dave Garland) Re: 450-434 Prefix? (John Levine) Re: Plain Old Cell Phones Fading away in U.S. (Phil McKerracher) What If ...? Was Re: Verizon Violates DNC List (George Mitchell) SIP IP PHones (George Muenz) Re: Faked CallerID Info? (Hank Karl) Re: Switch Verizon to Cavalier, Can't Get Through (John) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:16:19 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: PluggedIn: Going Mobile on a PC is Risky Business By Caroline Humer NEW YORK, Feb 3 (Reuters) - In any local coffee house, airport lounge or hotel lobby, technophiles and technophobes alike can be found hunched over their notebook computers. Toting around a computer filled with valuable data, however, is a growing risk: If the computer is lost or stolen, the user loses everything -- from a prized doctoral thesis to bank account numbers to records of passwords. When the thrill of being unplugged outweighs the danger of losing essential data, there are a number of technologies that make it easier to back up those files, keep them hidden and even track down the missing computer itself. It starts with that techno-mantra: back-up, back-up, back-up. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40400174 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:19:37 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cisco Systems Reports Second Quarter Earnings SAN JOSE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 3, 2004--Cisco Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:CSCO): -- Q2 Net Sales: $5.4 Billion (14.5% increase year over year; 5.8% increase quarter over quarter) -- Q2 Operating Cash Flows: $1.7 Billion -- Q2 Earnings Per Share: $0.18 GAAP before accounting change; $0.10 GAAP after accounting change Cisco Systems, Inc., the worldwide leader in networking for the Internet, today reported its second quarter results for the period ended January 24, 2004. Net sales for the second quarter of fiscal 2004 were $5.4 billion, compared with $4.7 billion for the second quarter of fiscal 2003, an increase of 14.5 percent, and compared with $5.1 billion for the first quarter of fiscal 2004, an increase of 5.8 percent. Net income for the second quarter of fiscal 2004, on a generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) basis, before the non-cash cumulative effect of an accounting change, was $1.3 billion or $0.18 per share, compared with $991 million or $0.14 per share for the second quarter of fiscal 2003, and compared with $1.1 billion or $0.15 per share for the first quarter of fiscal 2004. Net income on a GAAP basis, after the non-cash cumulative effect of the accounting change, was $724 million or $0.10 per share. Pro forma net income for the second quarter of fiscal 2004 was $1.3 billion or $0.18 per share, compared with $1.1 billion or $0.15 per share for the second quarter of fiscal 2003, and compared with $1.2 billion or $0.17 per share for the first quarter of fiscal 2004. A reconciliation between net income on a GAAP basis and pro forma net income is provided in a table immediately following the Pro Forma Consolidated Statements of Operations. Net sales for the first six months of fiscal 2004 were $10.5 billion, compared with $9.6 billion for the first six months of fiscal 2003, an increase of 9.8 percent. Net income for the first six months of fiscal 2004, on a GAAP basis, before the non-cash cumulative effect of the accounting change, was $2.4 billion or $0.33 per share, compared with $1.6 billion or $0.22 per share for the first six months of fiscal 2003. Net income for the first six months of fiscal 2004, on a GAAP basis, after the non-cash cumulative effect of the accounting change, was $1.8 billion or $0.25 per share. Pro forma net income for the first six months of fiscal 2004 was $2.5 billion or $0.35 per share, compared with $2.1 billion or $0.29 per share for the first six months of fiscal 2003. During the second quarter of fiscal 2004, Cisco(R) completed the acquisition of Latitude Communications, Inc. for a purchase price of approximately $86 million. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40406614 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:22:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Jackson, Timberlake Apologize for Flash By NEKESA MUMBI MOODY AP Music Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- CBS, MTV, the NFL, Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake all say they're sorry _ but none of that is deterring the federal government from looking into the Super Bowl's too-revealing halftime show. Federal Communications Commission chief Michael Powell on Monday promised an investigation into whether CBS violated decency laws, with potential fines of up to $27,500. If applied to each CBS station, the fine could reach into the millions. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40401895 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:23:59 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: New Verizon Advertising Socks it to Cable TV Commercials Stress it's an 'Easy Call' to Choose Verizon Online DSL Service Over Cable Companies' Offering NEW YORK, Feb. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- Verizon's new advertising campaign takes a peek inside the broadband-buyer's decision-making process and explains why Verizon Online DSL service is a better choice than cable for high-speed Internet communications. In two new television commercials, set to run in more than 20 major markets nationwide beginning tomorrow, consumers looking for broadband service come to the realization, after talking with a representatives from identified cable companies, that Verizon Online DSL with MSN Premium offers more of the features that they need at a lower price than the named cable provider can offer. In living room and home-office settings, fictitious consumers first hear about the hidden fees, limited service offerings and features they don't get when applying for cable modem service from identified cable television companies. Then, in a replay of the conversation with a Verizon representative, the consumers learn about the advantages of choosing Verizon Online DSL with MSN Premium service. After the consumers decide that Verizon is the better choice, Verizon's longtime spokesperson, James Earl Jones, concludes by saying, "That's an easy call." - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40406904 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:25:57 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: MTV Blames Janet Jackson for Super Bowl Incident By Kenneth Li NEW YORK, Feb 3 (Reuters) - Singer Janet Jackson masterminded the Super Bowl halftime stunt that left her right breast exposed and prompted a federal probe into television indecency, the head of MTV said on Tuesday. "Janet Jackson engineered it," MTV Chief Executive Tom Freston told Reuters in an interview. The blame on Jackson comes on a second day of fallout after pop idol Justin Timberlake tore off half of Jackson's black leather bustier while the pair were singing a duet, exposing her right breast at the conclusion of Sunday's Super Bowl halftime show. Freston, whose company produced the halftime show for CBS, said Timberlake was informed of the stunt just moments before he took the stage with Jackson. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40402505 ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: 450-434 Prefix? Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 13:35:59 -0600 Organization: Wizard Information It was a dark and stormy night when Carl Moore wrote: > One of the calls appearing on a just-received AT&T bill says it was > from "CANADA USA" Oops. That wasn't supposed to be used until after the invasion had begun. :) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 2004 22:01:23 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: 450-434 Prefix? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > One of the calls appearing on a just-received AT&T bill says it was > from "CANADA USA" (leaving blank space where a U.S. point would have > the state name). The telephone number shown was 450 434-0000, but > I am sure I placed the call from the 450-246 prefix, which was found > along the Autoroute 15 just north of U.S. border in Quebec province. The Jan 1 prefix list from CNAC says that 450-246 is Lacolle, 450-434 is Ste Therese. Both are near Montreal, but you were probably in Lacolle. Maybe your call got splashed. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies, Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I shook hands with Senators Dole and Inouye," said Tom, disarmingly. ------------------------------ From: Phil McKerracher Subject: Re: Plain Old Cell Phones Fading away in U.S. Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 21:42:36 GMT Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder) Joseph wrote in message news:telecom23.54.5@telecom-digest.org: > ... Color phones are many > times useless outside as the screen gets washed out in bright light > where a regular monochrome handset you can still see what's in the > display... Unless the screen is "transreflective" as on the O2 xda, which I have found surprisingly good, even in bright sunlight (Australian summer). > ... Polyphonic ringtones may sound somewhat cool, but if you > can't hear them in a noisy environment they are also useless... True, but a well chosen one (e.g. spanning a range of frequencies) can actually be more audible than a monophonic one. They also avoid confusion about whose phone is ringing. > Believe it or not some people want a mobile phone that they can > actually make and receive calls on.... easily Again, I've found it very convenient to have all my Outlook contacts in the xda, dialable with a single tap on the number. > ... It's going to be many years if never that cell phones supplant > personal computers as a way to communicate data. Hmm. Again, my xda is very useful for sending and receiving e-mail on the move. I have used it recently to e-mail diagnostic oscilloscope traces from a lab, to retrieve a streetmap of my current location from a car and to find a timetable for buses from Heathrow. It's MUCH more convenient to carry than a laptop, and the battery lasts all day. It hasn't "supplanted" my PC because I prefer to use that when I'm at home, but I wouldn't be without it when I'm on the move. That's not to say it's perfect - it crashes regularly for a start - but I think the principle is good. Phil McKerracher www.mckerracher.org ------------------------------ From: George Mitchell Subject: What If ...? Was Re: Verizon Violates DNC List Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:01:58 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com > TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to a message: > Even though officially the Bell System has been dead for many years, > the droids continue to act like Ma Bell was still around, as much as > they are permitted, don't they? I think those people act like > divestiture was merely a stumbling-block, a minor inconvenience in > their path. PAT] Verizon, of course, would have been an impossibility pre-divestiture, and even at the beginning of 1999, who would have dreamed of a merger between the largest independent telco with a big chunk of the old Bell System? As I was pondering Verizon's history this morning, it occurred to me to wonder what was on Judge Greene's mind when he repartitioned the old Bell System into the seven Baby Bells. What would have hap- pened if he had simply spun off the existing Bell operating companies with the nominal corporate structure which existed at the time? Surely some of us would still be dealing with New England Telephone, or Paci- fic Northwest Bell, etc. Would anything the size of Bell Atlantic have merged together by this point, to be merged in its turn with GTE? -- George Mitchell (obfuscated email address) ------------------------------ From: run1500@yahoo.com (George Muenz) Subject: SIP IP PHones Date: 3 Feb 2004 17:00:12 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi: We are looking to implement the Asterisk System. Looking at a few handset vendors as well. Would apprecaite any feedback or comments on these as well as if you know any vendors who can supply this cheap, or resources where they can be searched. Handsets Polycom SoundPoint IP 600 SIP Zultys ZIP 4x4 Snom Snom200 VoIP phone ipDialog SipTone Ethernet Thanks, George Muenz ------------------------------ From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: Faked CallerID Info? Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:27:59 -0500 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 19:20:13 CST, Sam Etler wrote: > As you can see this only applies to entities involved in telemarketing. > This is defined in 47 CFR 1200(f)(7) as: > "The term telemarketing means the initiation of a telephone call or > message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or > investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to > any person." In the documentation at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/businfo.html Its defined more widely. Anyone selling goods over the phone is a telemarketer. This also applies to some incoming calls. If you call in to a catalog and they try to "upsell" you, that call is covered under the regs. Of course, the caller-id part is not applicable. IANAL, but these regs seem to apply to a lot more businesses than the ones I've thought of as "telemarketers" (i.e. boiler rooms full of phones and people trying to sell just about everything you don't want). These rules seem to affect even a local business calling consumers. > So this does not apply to businesses who have a legitimate reason for > setting their Caller ID when not involved in telemarketing (and > believe me, there's plenty of good reasons to do it that most people > will never encounter) or private individuals who are doing it for > kicks (and perhaps not so legitimate reasons). > sam > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I *thought* (there I go, thinking for > myself again) that sometime in the past two weeks a rule saying > correct caller ID information had to be sent, whenever possible. PAT] It has to be correct for the organization making the call, but does not have to be the line's number. For example, a computer manufacturer may try to hide the fact that they outsource support to India. So when that third-party company calls you, they can put (for example) "Dell Support" and an 800 number instead of their actual company name and international number. See http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/businfo.html for more. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Since you mentioned Dell Support, let's chat about them for a minute. Has anyone seen that very funny commer- cial on television where a car load of people pull up to a Radio Shack store just at closing time? The clerk is walking out, and locking the door of the store when he sees this car full of people looking at him and giggling. The clerk approaches the car questioningly, and asks the people, "May I help you?" The people in the back seat reach out, grab the clerk and pull him into the car and speed away. The clerk is shown now sitting in the back seat, yelling frantically at the people saying, "Let me go! What do you want from me?". The car driver turns around and says to the folks in the back seat, "do not tell anyone about this." The poor Radio Shack clerk is looking frantic at this point, convinced he is going to get kidnapped, molested, whatever. The car pulls into a garage and we see everyone dragging or pulling the store clerk into the house where we see a computer monitor. "What we want you to do," says the man to the clerk, as he points at the computer screen, "is make this go away!" On the screen we see a message in large letters saying, 'ERROR CODE 417'. In the next scene, we see the car driving the clerk back to the store; they push the clerk out of the car in sort of a rough way, and then speed away, with the shocked clerk standing there shaking his head. A voice in the background warns us sternly: "Don't go there and do that! Instead get a Dell and all the help you need making it work correctly." (Picture of Dell Computer and sales/tech support phone number.) OUr local Radio Shack store has a sign by their computers saying 'we do not have Dells, dude! Much better deals!" PAT] ------------------------------ From: jvj1@yahoo.com (John) Subject: Re: Switch Verizon to Cavalier, Can't Get Through From Some Places Date: 3 Feb 2004 20:22:51 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com jvj1@yahoo.com (John) wrote in message news:: > Hi, > I recently switched from Verizon to Cavalier (in Maryland). All is > working fine until today. My daughter's phone tries to contact me for > some emergency. The school (walking distance from home) tells me that > they cannot call me and told me that they are getting my voicemail. > I called Cavalier. They told me that it is the problem with how the > school is dialing. So, I go to the school and dial our home. I'm > getting Verizon voicemail and it is asking me to enter a mailbox. > I called Cavalier again and explained the problem. They put me on hold > and told me they fixed it. I called the school half an hour later and > asked to call me at home. No calls from them ... meaning things are > still are not working. I seem to get calls from other parts ... Long > Distance and International. Cavalier doesn't seem to want to send > anybody to check it out. > Anybody knows what could be the problem? Wondering, where else people > cannot call me..:-/ > Thanks. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please answer a few questions for > me. You said you switched *from* Verizon to Cavalier. Yet the school > calls go to *Verizon* voice mail ... and the voicemail equipment (from > *Verizon*) asks the caller to 'enter a mailbox number'? It sounds to > me like the school phone (if their phones are on Verizon) is getting > sent to a generic voicemail inbound line. Verizon voicemail cannot > detirmine who the call is for so it asks the calling party to enter a > mailbox number. When you switched to Cavalier, did you intend to > retain the Verizon voicemail (or does Verizon supply the voicemail for > Cavalier under some contract, etc?) Did you (and/or your daughter) use > the same telephone to placed the call to you that would ordinarily be > used for such? > If Voicemail does not have an account for you (either because you have > now dropped Verizon or have not properly configured your Cavalier > phone voicemail correctly) then calls to it intended for 'no accounts' > get handled like calls where Voicemail does not know who is calling > it; a generic greeting 'what mailbox do you want?' is substituted. > Another clue was that Cavalier first told you the school was not > dialing the number 'correctly'. What is the 'correct' way to dial it? > If Verizon, (or whoever is the inter exchange carrier) and Cavalier > have their tables (databases) set up correctly then it shouldn't > matter how you dial, but this leads me to wonder if (whoever extended > dial tone -- Verizon? -- to the school and you on your attempt) has > some database error. Obviously you can see there are a lot more > questions to be answered in the process of resovling this mystery. In > fact, let's get even a bit more extreme: what do you get if you dial > your Cavalier number from a next door neighbor or even dial from your > home phone? ***Make certain you use a phone subscribed to Verizon > for your tests.*** And if possible, also test using a phone which is > subscribed to Cavalier. Also try these tests before and after you > have done whatever three-digit diddle is required to turn voice mail > on and off (in other words ring through to me.) Then please write > again, and we will try to resolved it further. Do not trouble the > droids with all this, not at first. It would be good if you could tell > them exactly what is wrong before they begin working on it. PAT] Slight confusion here in what I said. Please re-read in my post "My daughter's phone" to "My daughter's school". (my daughter is only 6 yr old :). I'll try to answer/give more details now. I'm only talking about 1 problem ... calling from School phone to my home. I only have one phoneline at home. It used to be Verizon and now it is Cavalier. I kept my phone number when switiching ... my number didn't change. It seems like when I call from the school, it is getting routed to a generic Verizon voicemail. I know it is Verizon because the greeting mentions Verizon. I tried to dial Verizon voicemail from my home and enter my phone number as the mailbox, and my voice mail at Verizon is not active anymore. I have activated the Cavalier voice mail the day I got connection from cavalier and it works. I have many people call me at my home, neighbor, My Cell phone, International etc. No problems with Cavalier and their voicemail. Only problem as far as I know is calling from School. I'll try calling from School to home on wednesday and write again. School was closed on Tuesday due to bad weather. Thanks, -John [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for some explanation. Now I want you to find out what telephone company serves the school, is it Verizon or some other competitor (like you have Cavalier.) Also find out what phone exchange serves the school. If the school is on Brand X telecom, then maybe Brand X does not have their routing tables up to date. Or maybe Brand X simply brokers through Verizon. Or maybe the school is on Verizon. You said 'I have many people call me and there is no problem with Cavalier.' No, there probably isn't any problem with Cavalier. I would suggest the problem is with Verizon. When a person has voicemail and does not answer the phone or the line is busy, the call is usually forwarded to a group of trunks which take the call to voicemail, sending along with the called party the number he was trying to reach and his own number, so the recipient voicemail can examine it and say he goes to box whatever. Maybe when your number was ported using LNP (local number portability) over to Cavalier, whoever did that work forgot to change the 'forward to voicemail' feature so that the call would go to Cavalier Voice Mail instead of Verizon Voice mail. So Verizon winds up getting the voicemail call but they no longer have an account for you. But you said 'friends from all over town call me and reach me' (and I assume your genuine voicemail). Find out for me which of your friends is on the same exchange as the school. What exchanges are they using in common? I think what you will find out is that anyone **on the same exchange as the school ** gets the very same results because there is something wrong in the translation tables at the (Verizon-based) exchange the school is on. In other words, a dozen phone subscribers on that exchange calling a dozen Cavalier subscribers would wind up getting the wrong voicemail (if the dozen recipients of Cavalier had voicemail and were called. It does not matter how many of your friends call you and get through. People on the same exchange as the school most likely are not getting through. I as reminded of a time several years ago when Chicago area (read that as Illinois Bell) customers could not get through to a given exchange in Milwaukee. It existed, it was populated, but Illinois Bell handed off their default calls to AT&T (which had bad tables!). If you called it as 1010+whatever carrier+the ten digit number you got through okay. But 1+ failed, cause IBT was handing the traffic to AT&T. I feel certain you are going to find something similar here in your case. Verizon (which after all, is where things are really at; Cavalier only has some two bit thing going on) has a translation problem somewhere. But more details please. We are starting to get close. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #55 *****************************